How We Assess Return Risk: Expert Witness Methodology

Last updated: 5 October 2026

Photo: United Nations Headquarters - USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

Return risk methodology is the systematic approach a country expert witness uses to assess what risk an individual faces upon return to their country of origin. The methodology must be rigorous, transparent, and evidence-based — meeting the standards set by the Upper Tribunal in MN and KY (Iran) [2014] UKUT 1 and the civil procedure rules on expert evidence. Furthermore, the expert's risk assessment is not a prediction — it is a structured opinion on the degree of risk, grounded in country knowledge, the applicant's profile, and the current situation. As a result, the methodology must be explained in the report so that the tribunal can follow the reasoning. This article describes the step-by-step return risk methodology used by country expert witnesses in asylum cases.[1]

See also: What judges look for in expert reports and What is an expert witness?

Overview: The Six-Step Framework

A structured return risk assessment proceeds in six steps: (1) establish the expert's qualifications and methodology; (2) survey current country conditions; (3) identify the applicant's profile and risk categories; (4) assess the persecutor's identity, capacity, and intent; (5) assess state protection; and (6) assess internal relocation. Furthermore, each step should be documented in the report with sources and reasoning. As a result, the judge can follow the expert's thinking at each stage. Therefore, the six-step framework is the backbone of a credible return risk assessment.[2]

Step 1: Country Conditions Survey

The expert begins by surveying current country conditions relevant to the claim. This means: describing the political situation; identifying which actors control which areas; documenting the human rights environment; and noting any recent developments (coups, offensives, elections, legal changes). Furthermore, the expert should use a range of current sources: UNHCR position papers; UN Fact-Finding Mission or OHCHR reports; reputable NGO reports (HRW, Amnesty); government Country Policy and Information Notes; and academic/journalistic sources. As a result, the country conditions survey establishes the evidentiary foundation for everything that follows. Therefore, it should be the most extensively sourced section of the report.[3]

Step 2: Applicant Profile Analysis

The second step is to identify the applicant's risk profile — the combination of characteristics that places them at risk. These characteristics include: ethnicity; religion; gender; political opinion (real or imputed); occupation; family connections; activities in the country of asylum (sur place); and region of origin. Furthermore, the expert must read and engage with the applicant's statement — not produce a generic profile assessment. As a result, the profile section should specifically address the applicant's stated characteristics and explain why they create a risk. Therefore, commissioning lawyers must provide the applicant's statement to the expert before the report is written.[4]

Step 3: Persecutor Analysis

The expert must identify who the persecutor is and assess their capacity and intent. For state persecution: identify the responsible organs (police, military, intelligence), their reach, and their methods. For non-state persecution: identify the actor (militia, gang, family, community), assess their reach and networking capacity, and assess whether the state will or can protect. Furthermore, the expert must address whether the persecutor is likely to be aware of or motivated to target the specific applicant — rather than simply commenting on group-level risk. As a result, the persecutor analysis connects country-level patterns to the applicant's individual situation. Therefore, it is the most legally consequential section of the report.[5]

Step 4: State Protection Assessment

Even where persecution is established, the claim may fail if domestic protection is available. The expert must assess: whether the state is the persecutor (no protection available from the perpetrator); whether non-state actors are disciplined (sufficiency of protection); whether legal frameworks protect the applicant; whether practical enforcement exists; and whether the applicant could access protection without secondary harm. Furthermore, the expert should address the Horvath test (R v SSHD ex p Horvath [2001] 1 AC 489): protection requires a reasonable willingness and ability to protect, not just the existence of laws. As a result, formal legal protections without practical enforcement are insufficient.[6]

Step 5: Internal Relocation Assessment

The expert must address whether internal relocation is available. The two-limb test (safety and reasonableness) must be applied to the proposed relocation site. Furthermore, for each proposed relocation area, the expert should address: whether the persecutor has reach there; whether the applicant can access the site safely (travel route); whether the site has adequate services (healthcare, housing, employment); and whether it is reasonable for the specific applicant to relocate given their personal circumstances (age, gender, health, family). As a result, a generic statement that "the applicant could relocate to the capital" is insufficient — the expert must assess the specific location and the specific applicant. Therefore, the UNHCR Guidelines on Internal Relocation (GIP-04, 2003) should be cited in the relocation analysis.[7]

Step 6: Concluding Risk Assessment

The final step is the expert's risk assessment conclusion. The expert should state: whether the applicant faces a real risk of persecution (the legal threshold); what the most likely form of harm is; what the basis for the assessment is; and what degree of confidence the expert has. Furthermore, the expert should acknowledge uncertainty where it exists: country conditions change; some information is not available; the expert cannot be certain of the future. As a result, a nuanced conclusion acknowledging uncertainty is more credible than a bold assertion of certainty. Therefore, the conclusion should be a reasoned opinion — not a legal determination (which is the tribunal's role).[8]

"The expert's role is to assist the tribunal by providing an informed opinion. The expert should state clearly what they know, what they infer, and what they do not know. Certainty where none exists is not helpful — it is misleading."Upper Tribunal Guidance on Expert Evidence in Asylum Cases

Conclusion: Transparency as the Hallmark of Good Methodology

Return risk methodology is valuable precisely because it is transparent and replicable. The tribunal can follow the expert's reasoning, check the sources, and assess the logic. Furthermore, transparent methodology makes the report defensible when challenged by the Home Office or opposing expert. As a result, experts who follow a consistent, documented methodology are more credible across multiple cases. Therefore, return risk assessment should be approached as a scientific inquiry — with stated methods, verifiable sources, and honest conclusions.